PROCEEDINGS OF TWENTY-SIXTH FRUIT-GROWERs' CONVENTION. 171 



investigations along this line; but this example was soon followed by- 

 other countries. 



The Analytical Sanitary Commission was commenced in the first 

 number of the Lancet in 1851, in which the editor states: '^We propose, 

 for the public benefit, to institute an extensive and somewhat rigorous 

 series of investigations into the present conditions of the various articles 

 of diet supplied to the inhabitants of this great metropolis and vicinity. 

 * * * Special features of the inquiry will be that they are all based 

 upon actual inquiry and experiment. The microscope and test-tube 

 will be our constant companions." 



This was the first instance of any extensive application of quantita- 

 tive analysis and of the microscope to the examination of foods. The 

 work of the commission was carried on for four years, and was produc- 

 tive of excellent results— one of which was the appointment of "The 

 Select Committee on the Adulterations of Foods," which is still in 

 existence; another, the passage of the first general act in 1860, which 

 was followed by many others, the laist being enacted in 1887. 



Actually the work of the commission met with opposition in every 

 form, particularly from dealers and manufacturers. Even in Parlia- 

 ment, Sir Charles Wood, Chancellor of the Exchequer, quoted as opinion 

 of the "most distinguished chemist of the day" the assertion that 

 " neither by chemistry nor by any other means could chicory be detected 

 in a mixture of that substance with coffee." With the aid of the micro- 

 scope Dr. Hassall proved this assertion to be false. 



The English law on this subject has exerted a powerful and wide 

 influence. In framing all subsequent laws in other countries the Eng- 

 lish law has been carefully studied, and the experience gained in thirty 

 years' contest between friends and foes of pure-food legislation has saved 

 lots of time and misspent effort. It might well be asked why, after all 

 these years of recognition of this evil, have we not done more toward 

 overcoming or regulating it? But, as Hon. Harriot Brosius of Penn- 

 sylvania says: "We are a peculiar people — man is not only a bundle of 

 habits, but the parts of his character are in a state of chronic war with 

 each other." 



Is it any wonder that no one has been able to find a suitable definition 

 for him. Bryant says, "Some define man as a talking animal, overlook- 

 ing poor Poll. Some have defined him as a laughing animal, forgetting 

 the laughing hyena; others as the animal that cooks food, not thinking 

 of the traditional monkey that used a cat's paw to pull the chestnuts 

 out of the fire. Seeking thoughtfully for a definition drawn from a wide 

 generalization, I have come," he says, "to the deliberate conclusion that 

 the only definition which sufficiently determines and distinguishes man 

 from all known animals is this, 'man is an animal that adulterates and 

 sometimes poisons his own food and drink.'" 



